September 2011 Fastrack

[erlrich]

Has been up since Friday - the sauce is weak around here this month...

Minutes are here
Tech bulletin is here


Of interest - under "What do you think?"

• "Member input is requested on whether an allowance should be made to permit disabling power steering assistance on IT cars, including allowing the fluid lines to be looped if desired."

Yeah, sure, why not...I mean, they don't have power steering on real race cars, do they?

Interesting non-IT item; T3 as we know it is going away next year, but then in '13 SSB and SSC will be combined and become the new T3. The majority of current T3 cars will be moving to T2 (they also have ST as an option). I'm sure the T3 drivers - all 10 of them (including Mr. Chairman) are thrilled....

[rsportvolvo]

Yet another CRB letter response email notice with nothing in Fastrack. So much for the notifications being accurate...

[red986s]

(Super Touring) You can put a VW engine in a 944? 924 makes sense, but a 944, interesting.

[Greg Amy]

You can put a VW engine in a 944? (Super Touring)

He asked, we said, "sure, why not?" Once you really think about it - and we did - VW and Porsche are the same "family." Yeah, maybe not exactly the same structural relationship as Honda/Acura, Toyota/Lexus, GM/Pontiac, or even VW/Audi, but VW does pretty much own a major chunk of Porsche...and they've been sharing technology for decades (912/914/VW bus, Porsche 924/Audi 100, etc).

So, sure, find a way toss in that Golf 2.0L turbo engine into your 944, and go have fun playing in STU...

GA

[red986s]

He asked, we said, "sure, why not?" Once you really think about it - and we did - VW and Porsche are the same "family." Yeah, maybe not exactly the same structural relationship as Honda/Acura, Toyota/Lexus, GM/Pontiac, or even VW/Audi, but VW does pretty much own a major chunk of Porsche...and they've been sharing technology for decades (912/914/VW bus, Porsche 924/Audi 100, etc).

So, sure, find a way toss in that Golf 2.0L turbo engine into your 944, and go have fun playing in STU...

GA

Wow! I like it, thanks Greg!

[CRallo]

Didn't motor mounts get covered a while ago and the answer was no?

Disable to power steering? Someone trying another angle at those core IT sticking points?

So I can put a VW engine in my Porsche, but I can't put a Nissan engine in my Nissan. Some consistency on policy and interpretation would be nice... Or did the liberals take over?! how far does this apply? Can I put a Mazda rotary in my subaru and put that engine in my Pontiac and put that engine in my toyota? Can the toyota's engine go in the mazda? That last one is not as big of a stretch as it sounds based on the precedent that appears to have been set...

[Chip42]

He asked, we said, "sure, why not?" Once you really think about it - and we did - VW and Porsche are the same "family." Yeah, maybe not exactly the same structural relationship as Honda/Acura, Toyota/Lexus, GM/Pontiac, or even VW/Audi, but VW does pretty much own a major chunk of Porsche...and they've been sharing technology for decades (912/914/VW bus, Porsche 924/Audi 100, etc).

So, sure, find a way toss in that Golf 2.0L turbo engine into your 944, and go have fun playing in STU...

GA

tGA - I know you and I discussed this either int he ST forum or offline previously and the result was effectively "we'll let it work itself out," but the "family" engine swap concept needs to be defined, and apparently sooner than later. VW/Audi = lexus/toyota = acura/hona, etc... fine. GM = chevy/pontiac/buick/cadillac, OK. but I don't think anyone thought less recent VW/Audi and porsches were open.

but the cross breeds, the short term corporate ownership particularly after 2008 reshuffled the deck... sooner or later there's going to be turbo volvo and rotary engined fords, subaru engined pontiacs and toyotas, and hemi MBs. the time to clarify this rule has passed, it needs to be straitened out NOW because I think the general understanding was just shattered.

[Matt93SE]

tGA - I know you and I discussed this either int he ST forum or offline previously and the result was effectively "we'll let it work itself out," but the "family" engine swap concept needs to be defined, and apparently sooner than later. VW/Audi = lexus/toyota = acura/hona, etc... fine. GM = chevy/pontiac/buick/cadillac, OK. but I don't think anyone thought less recent VW/Audi and porsches were open.

but the cross breeds, the short term corporate ownership particularly after 2008 reshuffled the deck... sooner or later there's going to be turbo volvo and rotary engined fords, subaru engined pontiacs and toyotas, and hemi MBs. the time to clarify this rule has passed, it needs to be straitened out NOW because I think the general understanding was just shattered.

I'm pretty much in agreement with that. There's too much ambiguity in some of these things, and too much that's being disallowed that should be pretty simple and straightforward.

Toyota made the Pontiac Vibe. Toyota also made the early Geo Metro. Mitsubishi made/makes the engines in Dodge Caravans, eagle talons, and dodge stealth.

So does that mean I can put a 4G63 turbo in my Neon?
Or how about a 2JZ-GTE in my GTO or Grand Prix, which would allow either of them into STU?

At one time, Toyota built trannies for Chevy too. So how about a 2JZ in my Camaro?

Hell, almost all OEMs use Mahle pistons anymore.. maybe we should just say they're all the same damn thing since the parts come from the same factory..

you want tortured interpretations, I'll give you tortured!!

[Hoof Hearted]

So, sure, find a way toss in that Golf 2.0L turbo engine into your 944, and go have fun playing in STU...

GA

2.0L GTI turbo motor in my 1984 Scirocco... ...hmmmmm, interesting.

[mossaidis]

2.0L GTI turbo motor in my 1984 Scirocco... ...hmmmmm, interesting.

Already done! Talk to Tom Hansen...

[chuck baader]

I don't mean to bitch, but how long does it take to formulate a sentence allowing substitution of engine/trans mounts?

My suggestion sent 2-22-10:

"Engine and transmission mounts of alternate design and/or material, may be used, but there can be no change to the engine’s fore, aft or vertical location. Engine mounts must attach to the engine and the chassis in their stock locations."

Seems to me that in 18 months something could be formulated. Chuck

[JeffYoung]

Your language is appreciated but it has issues. We've worked with other ACs to come up with something we think works. We want to try to get this one right.

I don't mean to bitch, but how long does it take to formulate a sentence allowing substitution of engine/trans mounts?

My suggestion sent 2-22-10:

"Engine and transmission mounts of alternate design and/or material, may be used, but there can be no change to the engine’s fore, aft or vertical location. Engine mounts must attach to the engine and the chassis in their stock locations."

Seems to me that in 18 months something could be formulated. Chuck

[Z3_GoCar]

I don't mean to bitch, but how long does it take to formulate a sentence allowing substitution of engine/trans mounts?

My suggestion sent 2-22-10:

"Engine and transmission mounts of alternate design and/or material, may be used, but there can be no change to the engine’s fore, aft or vertical location. Engine mounts must attach to the engine and the chassis in their stock locations."

Seems to me that in 18 months something could be formulated. Chuck

I too have a proposal in the files on motor mounts... but it's been tabled

[Knestis]

I too have a proposal in the files on motor mounts... but it's been tabled

I'm worried about PermaTable(r) coming back into vogue as a way of back-rooming the rules.

K

[JeffYoung]

My personal thinking on the power steering rule:

1. You can already depower the rack with a "trick" pulley that spins without turning the pump, so this can be done.

2. Arguably -- arguably -- you can depower the rack since the lines are "free" and ... use your imagination.

So this change is just to "mirror reality" that already exists under the rules.

But my feeling is that we all have some trepidation because it sure does look like rules creep.

Thoughts/discussion appreciated.

Has been up since Friday - the sauce is weak around here this month...

Minutes are here
Tech bulletin is here



Of interest - under "What do you think?"

• "Member input is requested on whether an allowance should be made to permit disabling power steering assistance on IT cars, including allowing the fluid lines to be looped if desired."

Yeah, sure, why not...I mean, they don't have power steering on real race cars, do they?

Interesting non-IT item; T3 as we know it is going away next year, but then in '13 SSB and SSC will be combined and become the new T3. The majority of current T3 cars will be moving to T2 (they also have ST as an option). I'm sure the T3 drivers - all 10 of them (including Mr. Chairman) are thrilled....

[Andy Bettencourt]

2. Arguably -- arguably -- you can depower the rack since the lines are "free" and ... use your imagination.

So this change is just to "mirror reality" that already exists under the rules.

But my feeling is that we all have some trepidation because it sure does look like rules creep.

Thoughts/discussion appreciated.

No, no, no. So much intorturtation there it's crazy Jeff.

Quote us the 'lines are free' rule.

[JeffYoung]

I'll go look for it. Don't folks add power steering fluid coolers? that would suggest?

In the interim, deal with the point about the pulley that essentially spins on a bearing -- all legal since pulleys are legal -- and doesn't drive the pump. Since that is free, why make folks go through that effort?

No, no, no. So much intorturtation there it's crazy Jeff.

Quote us the 'lines are free' rule.

[JeffYoung]

Here it is:

Oil pans, pan baffles, scrapers, windage trays, oil pickups,
lines, and filters are unrestricted. Oil and power steering hoses

may be replaced with metal braided hose (i.e. Aeroquip).

What if my metal braided hose has a restrictor that effectively reduces or eliminates the assist?

[Greg Amy]

I'd call it intorturation. Clever, no doubt, and worthy of GA Intorturation Status Level 2, but intorturation nonetheless.

That said, I support a SM-equivalent power steering rule in IT (I requested many moons ago, both from a selfish and a SM-allowance perspective, shot down...)

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Here it is:

Oil pans, pan baffles, scrapers, windage trays, oil pickups,
lines, and filters are unrestricted. Oil and power steering hoses

may be replaced with metal braided hose (i.e. Aeroquip).

What if my metal braided hose has a restrictor that effectively reduces or eliminates the assist?

Yes, tortured for sure. The rule specifically allows a stock hose to be replaced with a metal braided one. TYPE not FUNCTIONALITY.

Maybe I will play along. How about custom 'mirrors' (free) that are thinly disguised aero winglets. These of course are wired into my 'data acq' system, and are programmed to electronically change position for maximum/minimum downforce by my design on a track by track and corner to corner basis.

Yes, yes. Excellent!